Piratical Freedom: Sexting, Drones and Social Responsibilty

In many countries, including Canada, 'sexting' — the texting or posting of naked or semi-naked photographs on social media sites — can be considered a crime if the persons portrayed are minors.

Social media is a filter that creates an illusory removal from context.  You think you can post anonymously or have your content get lost in the din, meaning you have no accountability for what you say.  Comments can be veiled threats, as was received by Ontario Ombudsman Andre Marin - or, they can be a whole campaign, as was vikileaks.

One the supposed anonymity of social media clearly doesn't do is remove consequence.  Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and many, many others can speak to that.  Countless others who have thankfully not been driven to suicide, but have seen their reputation raked through the mud by anonymous posters have suffered as well. 

Thankfully, with the bleed of information and the probing of grassroots into the concrete bunkers of the nation, it's getting harder and harder to stay anonymous, meaning accountability is starting to filter back into the equation.  The grand irony, of course, is the fact that Anonymous currently plays such a huge role in forcing transparency and accountability.  

Social media isn't the only sphere where an apparent lack of accountability and the reliance on a somnambulant public have resulted in transgressions of ethics.  The ongoing Senate scandals, various robocall shenanigans, whatever's up with Rob Ford and crack and prison visits - these are all scenarios that would never have been possible without the potential of anonymity or the expectation that Canadians don't care.

If I've learned anything in my travels, my experience in politics and my explorations of people themselves it's that to treat another person in an inhumane fashion, you can't view them as human.  By creating a barrier between "us" and "them" - we are smart, they are dumb, we are moral, they immoral, she's essentially whorish and therefore it's okay to treat her as property, he's essentially a thug so gets what he deserves, etc.  There's not much difference between wanting to cull Muslims and wanting to remove Roma from Hungary, all immigrants from Greece or gays from Russia - or settle the Jewish Question.

The United States has consistently claimed only a tiny number of non-combatants have been killed in drone attacks in Pakistan – despite research by the Bureau and others suggesting that over 400 civilians may have died in the nine-year campaign.

One thing about drones - you never need to look your targets in your eye.  You don't need to train your physique to be in the best possible position of defence, because you will never be threatened yourself.  The daily life, the personal interactions, the hopes, fears and doubts - or confidence, hatred and bitterness that may present itself in the eye of your opponent will never register.  Neither will, of course, the civilian casualties that will also fall to your attack.  It's all in a day's work, after all.

The point of drones, though, is to protect "our" troops from harm.  If we can create a fortress America that lets only the economically good people in and export defence through technology, "we" can live a perfect life in a colony removed from the strife churning in that sea of troubled waters.

We won't need to worry about them, unless they are perceived to threaten our freedom.

Drones, robocalls, anonymous tweets... they're all about the elusive dream of freedom as defined by Ayn Rand and Great Big Sea:

I wanna be consequence free

I wanna be where nothing needs to matter

Watching the 3rd Pirates of the Caribbean Film last Night - At World's End - I was reminded of the theme of piracy, as defined by the film makers - piracy, in their version of the world, equates with freedom.  No rules, no accountabilities, just clear horizons and bottles of rum. 

This is the definition of freedom that seems to have the greatest traction these days.  It's why Rob Ford is so popular - he gives the finger to the rules and all personal expectations of his post, texting while driving, getting a little unruly out at events, dismissing bothersome reports and facts and just going with his gut.  By and large it's working for him, personally - whatever happens to Toronto's reputation, whatever gridlock occurs at City Hall or however we collectively fall behind, people still say that they'd prefer a crack-smoking Rob Ford to someone like David Miller.

Rob Ford is popular because he acts like he is consequence-free, as we would like to be.  However, his actions (and inaction) are not consequence free - the consequences of his actions have been downloaded to others.  Depending on what comes out of the crack episode, we may find that some rather severe consequences of his actions have landed on the backs of others, directly, and on all of us by association.

That's the thing about the Pirate model of freedom - yes, Pirates didn't have to work much, nor work hard and yes, they were free to roam the seas, taking what they wanted.  But what they took, they took by force from others.  There actually was a pirate code, because it very quickly became clear that shipboard anarchy was a recipe for disaster.  Anarchy, each man for himself, doesn't work - it never has.

Be it sexting (sending pictures of ourselves or sending pictures of others), robocalls, drone attacks or any number of actions that derive self-gratification, there are always consequences.  You can turn a blind eye and hope to escape direct accountability or you can assume you'll never get caught.  If you're powerful enough, you can count on your might of weapons or money to keep consequences at bay, but again you're ignoring a basic historical truth - what goes around, comes around.

Rob Ford will face consequences, in time.  So too will the people who have enabled him thus far.  Sexting bullies and pornographers are slowly being caught up in accountability as well.  The US is paying for its actions through a thousand cuts that will take their toll, with time.  Some people will merely see their reputations damaged, while others will see the organizations they have worked hard to build begin to fracture.

 

We can look back on history as a series of vignettes of aggressive, selfish and willfully ignorant people getting ahead on the backs of others - but we can also see a larger picture of that selfish success becoming watered down as consequences become more severe and society, more complex.

 

There's a reason why The Golden Rule is universal; in a social context, you can't escape consequence.  We can never be free from each other.

 

The smartest leaders are the ones who recognize and internalize this truth and plan accordingly.

 

The Burning Platform: Brian Lilley and the Cost of Laissez-Faire Politics

“I think political staff have way too much influence and power in the way they try and push around elected officials.”

Lilley makes an interesting point, as he occasionally does, though he also misses a big one.  

 

It's a general rule in politics that nobody cares what you do to achieve results - the ends justify the means.  Attack ads are a great example - nobody likes 'em, but because they work, everyone uses them.  Shouting down opponents in the Legislature, using tax dollars to fund literature critical of political opponents, intentionally spreading false rumours, etc. etc. - they're all examples of the same thing. 

 

Believe me - if the 2011 election had produced a Liberal majority, we'd be hearing far less about the gas plants.  In fact, the Opposition Parties would be mining that experience for best practises they could use.  The reverse certainly has happened.  Look at Stephen Harper's litany of sins - how many of them still make headlines?  That's why Liberals are pulling from his playbook - his tactics have worked in strengthening the Conservatives' partisan hold (though I'd question how sustainable that hold is).

Political Parties, after all, aren't charged with promoting democracy - they're charged with winning power.  Tending to democracy is, technically, the job of citizens, though we've gotten good at uploading that responsibility to others.  We elect officials based partially on the individual, but to a large extent on their Party brand; who, then, are our elected officials accountable to?  They only hear from their constituents every four years; the Party, however, interacts with them almost daily.  At our worst, we fundamentally don't care about how well our democracy functions, either, so long as we get the small-picture wins we feel matter to us. 

 

Our indifference to the political process serves as a dopper, snuffing the light of our democratic system.

 

Lilley serves as the poster boy for this laissez-faire style of democratic engagement; he doesn't care whether Rob Ford smokes crack, fuelling an illicit industry that ruins lives through addiction and ends lives through gun violence that spills out onto our streets, killing white girls like Jane Creba; Ford cuts taxes and mouths off to lefties, which is all that matters to him. 

 

When the consequences of his short-sightedness land a little too close to home, Lilley will be among the first demanding the suppliers of Rob Ford's demand face harsh punishment.  Why take the lead out of the water when it's so much easier to spend more money reactively, curing lead poisoning?  To proactively determine and address the root causes of a problem's a bit too much like committing sociology.

 

If the ends justify the means in politics, it's because we as citizens only pay attention to the process when we aren't getting what we want.  It should serve as no surprise, then, that there are no standardized checks and balances within the backrooms of Canadian politics.  Being a politician is a bit like being a parent; you don't get a manual on how to hire and manage staff, best practises for organizing offices, etc.  As with their role in general, the theory is that they either get it right on their own or get ousted next election. 

 

As such, there's nothing stopping elected officials from serial hiring and firing, paying minimum wage but providing maximum workload, providing little or poor direction, or allocating more resources to partisan advertising than to working on deliverables for their constituents.  Members can even spend their time learning Portuguese in a Spanish speaking country if they so choose - so long as they keep getting elected, what else matters?

 

The only place this complete autonomy gets checked is where the roles and responsibilities of the elected official impacts the elected official above them.  Parties need butts in seats for votes, after all; when the offhand comments of one elected official casts a shadow on the whole Party, someone has to light a fire under them to get in line.

 

So, who’s the top elected official in a Party?  The Leader – they won their seat and they won the leadership; if they happen to be Premier, it can be argued they won the province, too.  That gives them the autonomy to direct their staff as they please.  As they are responsible for the Party (Caucus included) producing results, it's the job of the Leader to deliver those results, by whatever means necessary - again, because in politics you are judged by what you accomplish, not how you accomplish it.

 

The job of leader comes with no description, but it involves a lot of fingers in a lot of pies - planning messaging and policy, getting out and meeting with constituents, stakeholders and potential partners, attending fundraisers (Parties gotta have funds), communicating with the media, communicating with Caucus, etc., etc.  One person can't do it all, so they need staff to assist.  It's all well and good to turn to other elected officials to serve as House Leader or Caucus Whip, but those elected officials have their own ridings to tend to, as well - meaning that at the end of the day, staff have to keep the machine rolling.

 

What happens when you have the staff of one supremely autonomous elected official running up against elected officials with fewer titles under their belt?  Does the hired hand representing the will of the Leader trump the official only elected in one riding?  If you're that senior staffer, being pressured to deliver results regardless of consequence, what would you do when faced with a lower-tier official not falling in line?

 

Of course, this is all just theoretical – for us private citizens, for elected officials and for staffers themselves.  There are no written protocols on responsibility, chain-of-command between staff at one tier vs. officials/staff at another.  That's all process stuff which nobody has historically had time for - remember, the means don't matter, only the ends do.  When you don't care how you get from A to B, you take the easiest route possible, even if it isn't the safest.  Political staff make it up as they go along, just as the elected officials do. 

 

When there’s no established communications protocol between partners, you end up with pushing matches that devolve into threats based on who has the most influence.  As such the people at the top (either elected or appointed) conclude “we are smart, they are dumb” to justify the application of excessive pressure to deliver the results they think are appropriate.

 

Influence, by the way, always translates into money – Members who do a lot of fundraising have more clout with the Centre.  The Centre has clout in that they can allocate or not allocate resources for elections or provide “wins” like development projects for ridings for Members who tow the line.  The end goal, of course, is always to gain or retain enough seats to hold power - not to make society function better. 

 

This doesn't apply to just one Party – that’s politics, period.  The same failings that landed us with the gas plants have led to fake lakes, robocalls, Walkerton and the 407.  There are no written rules of conduct, no communications protocols and most egregious, no training on how to do the internal stuff well.  As a result, you end up with front line staff who have neither training nor a clear mandate for their jobs, elected officials who have no internal office support, a lack of clarity of communication between all levels of the political system, so on and so forth.  Talent does sometimes get rewarded, but more than anything it's those best able to keep others in line, regardless of the social cost for doing so, that get ahead.

 

That's politics - lots of friction, lots of heat, but far less light than there could be.  Instead of finding efficient ways to channel that friction into positive, productive energy, we have this habit of pouring gas on the fire.

 

Rob Ford is great at this, which probably accounts for his success.  In other contexts, saying that supporting liberal policies is like putting a gun in someone's hand would result in a telephone call from the police for issuing a threat; when it comes from an elected official - even one elected in a different jurisdiction - the standards are different.

 

Let's not forget that the Rob Ford staffer who tried to bring some accountability to the whole crack-smoking affair got canned.  What example does that set for his replacement?

 

There's always talk about the need for politics to function more like a business; well, the best businesses offer direction, support and training to their staff; they understand they can only get out of their process what they put in to it.  Achieving, not winning, is their goal.

 

Until we start believing that the ends don't justify the means and respond accordingly - starting with appropriate internal training for Politicians and their staff - we are condemning ourselves to burn.

 

The Politics of Responsibility

A column of mine from the Cornwall FreeNews; the concepts therein are very much in my mind these days.

 

“You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.” 

• James D. Miles

 

Alaskan Airlines is trying to climb out of a hole dug when their employees didn’t provide extra assistance to a man with Parkinson’s Disease.  The public backlash is as significant as it was predictable.  The airline issued an apology and has taken steps to atone for the error, but this incident comes with a caveat; some have suggested it was really up to the customer in question to self-identify.

 

There’s merit to this argument; if you’ve got a severe food allergy or other dietary restriction, it’s not really fair to assume a restaurant will intuit what you can or can’t eat.   If you’re booking a seat on a plane and you’re wheelchair bound, you want to let your customer service representative know in advance so they can provide assistance.  On the other hand, good customer service is about identifying the needs of your customer and adding the extra bit of value.  Many restaurants now actively promote special menus and good customer service reps will ask leading questions about their customers’ special needs.  Washrooms and public transit vehicles now proactively accommodate the mobility challenged; when we each go the extra mile and take that extra measure of situational ownership, we ensure the best experience for everyone.

 

This week, I had a Twitter back-and-forth with Susanna Kelley, Editor-in-Chief/Queen’s Park Bureau Chief for ontarionewswatch.com about cyclists, drivers and road safety in Toronto.  Far too many cyclists do whip through traffic like it’s a video game, without thought as to how others might respond to their behaviour.  Of course, the same applies to drivers and pedestrians, too.  With everyone engrossed in their cellphone, their iProduct or just in a rush, little or no focus is being given to the people around us or the consequences of our actions; we’re abdicating collective responsibility.

 

I know all too well the impact this selfish approach can have – in March of this year, a negligent driver slammed into me with his SUV while doing a left-hand turn at an intersection.  I had the right of way but made the mistake of looking right for a bus I wanted to catch instead of left to see the oncoming vehicle.  More than four months later, I’m still recuperating.

 

Then, there’s Adam Carroll.  If you don’t know the name, Carroll is the Liberal Party of Canada staffer who was behind #Vikileaks, a personal attack on Vic Toews, Canada’s Minister of Public Safety, over his “lawful access” online safety Bill.  When it came to light that it was a Liberal staffer behind this smear campaign, the man was fired and the Liberal’s interim leader, Bob Rae, gave a heartfelt and public apology to Toews.  Alas, it’s recently been revealed that Adam Carroll is now back on the Liberal payroll, bringing in to question the sincerity of the original apology and once again raising the question of whether Carroll acted alone.  Add this to the growing list of scandals perpetrated by a Conservative government that believes “a political truth can sometimes be different” (orange juice, anyone?) or an NDP opposition that takes different positions depending on their audience and there’s no need to question why there is so much cynicism in Canadian politics.

 

Politics, of course, isn’t about doing what’s right – it’s about doing what it takes to get ahead.  The public might decry attack ads, but they will continue to be used because they’re effective.  It might frustrate us when partisan groups get the gravy and friends of politicians get appointments, but if we’re not voting, not donating and not engaging in the political process, what else can we really expect?  Sir John A. MacDonald used to say “Give me better wood and I will make you a better cabinet” – we can only expect our democracy to represent our interests when we actively participate in the process.  But then again, when politicians of all stripes regularly ignore the public trust, how can we possibly expect contributions to have an impact?    It’s a chicken and omelette kind of thing.

 

When we stick within a selfish, reactive frame of behaviour, we are ignoring Newton’s Third Law of Motion – for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  When political operatives behave inconsiderately, the electorate tunes out.  That might work for them in the short term, but eventually, your voting base gets eroded and your access to (and often, interest in) fresh policy ideas diminishes.  The same holds true for business – if you don’t value your customer, you lose them.  You can keep cutting costs to reduce the internal impact of those losses, but if you want to survive in the long run you constantly need to bring new value to the table.

 

The reverse is true, too – inaction breeds inaction.  If you don’t represent your interests to politicians, business or even friends and families, you can’t force them to read your mind.  The only way to guarantee action on your behalf is to be proactive about it.  That’s easier said than done, though; when everyone is pursuing their individual interests independently, you end up with gridlock.  When some people are better or more forceful at communicating, their needs are given more attention than those of others (which is a big factor in why there is still crippling poverty in this country and around the world).  Like the Red Queen of Wonderland, we’re all running as fast as we can to stay in the same place; only a tiny fraction will get ahead and most will fall behind.

 

Despite what the Ayn Rands of the world might try to convince us, “each to his own” doesn’t work; it simply creates tragedies of the commons.  The real way to get ahead is by adding value to your personal, professional and political relationships.  Whether this takes the form of extra emphasis on knowing your customer’s needs and wants to serve them better, political outreach and public consultations or even just listening to friends instead of talking to them, you can only get out of life what you’re willing to put in.

 

Like it or not, society is a collective enterprise; we all drive on the same roads and use the same public services, much as we all inhabit the same planet and breathe the same air.  Yes, there are basic freedoms we must have to achieve and contribute our personal maximum, but the flipside of those rights is responsibility.  Gun ownership provides a great example – if everyone packs heat, there really aren’t any civilians.  So long as we are sharing the same space and using the same resources, we have to balance access with respect for the rights of others.  That way, we can engender the same in return.  After all, altruism is really selfishness that plans ahead.

 

Craig Carter Edwards

 

Born and raised in Cornwall, Craig has lived in or travelled to nearly 30 countries and currently resides in North York with his wife and son.  A political veteran, Craig brings a wealth of government, private and not-for-profit sectors experience to his current role as strategy consultant for the social entrepreneurship sector.

 

(Comments and opinions of Editorials, Letters to the Editor, and comments from readers are purely their own and don’t necessarily reflect those of the owners of this site, their staff, or sponsors.)

Andrew Coyne: The Ned Stark of #cdnpoli?

And two: make the party leaders voice the ads. None of these ads appears without the leader’s authorization — yet their fingerprints are kept off them. They can take the high road, while their minions do their dirty work. If any of this filth came out of their own mouths, they’d have to be accountable for it.

 

  - Andrew Coyne

 

 

I personally think this is a brilliant idea.  We're seeing a widening gap between those who pass judgement and those who suffer the consequences; it's as true of arms-length attack ads as it is of using drones instead of soldiers.  The end result is a failed democracy where the kings at the top wage wars that weigh most heavily on the pawns on the bottom, with collateral damage (in this case, voter engagement) suffering as a consequence.

 

Of course, Coyne isn't in politics - he merely covers it.  Were he to have real skin in the game and be faced with attacks directed at his very character, he might be a bit more inclined to circle the wagons, hit first and hit hard, too.  It's first-past-the-post after all - the players are victims of the game, right?  The ends justify the means, winning absolves all responsibility for campaign sins?

 

You'd think Stephen Harper, who loves him some cutthroat political maneuvering, would agree that understanding the context in which political skulduggery happens matters.  After all, he always finds ways to explain the root causes of the challenge and justify his actions (whether it's bribing a dying man, lying to the Canadian people, withholding information or bullying people over whom he has power).

 

But that's not the case, is it?

 

 

“When you see this type of violent act, you do not sit around trying to rationalize it or make excuses for it or figure out its root causes,” Harper told reporters.

 

Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, in other words - it doesn't matter what informs that behaviour, you just stamp it out. 

 

Now's about when enablers of Harper will circle the wagons around him and cry fowl - he hasn't killed anyone.  This is true - but by allowing for his Party to circulate false information, by stepping away from vital conversations around drought in Africa and the environmental consequences of the Oil Sands he is contributing to the harm of many.  If a lack of robust Census data results in service deficiencies that see people die unnecessarily, then he would definitely wear some of that blame.

 

If something like that happened (just as it did with Walkerton or Ipperwash) Harper's enablers would again circulate, reminding us there are two sides to every story and that Harper is a good guy who deserves our support.  Which is exactly what the folk defending the rapers of Rehtaeh Parsons are doing right now.

 

Either bad behaviour is bad behaviour that must be punished, not rationalized, or you need to understand the context to make a sound judgement.  It can't be both.

 

Which is why there is real value in tying judgement and accountability, especially at the highest levels, together.  Those who okay negative attacks that will have real consequences for others should have the courage and conviction to wield the proverbial sword themselves.  Whether or not you're willing to step into the ring and put your own skin in the game is the ultimate test of what someone believes in.  Making it so that you have no alternative might just convince the players to think through their choices before acting rashly.

 

Andrew Coyne's on to something with this personal accountability concept; let's just hope he doesn't lose his head over it.

The Role of Government

 

This begs a second question, since when is young boys taking a picture of a rape of a 15-year-old girl and then distributing it considered an issue for the community to handle?

 

Call me naive, but isn't the role of a democratically elected government to represent the voice of the community - and ensure every voice gets reflected in decision making?  Through justice services, aren't governments supposed to put a floor on acceptable behaviour and provide mechanisms for restoration, reconciliation and rehabilitation?

 

We have a consumer-based culture that's all about individual rights, individual access, etc - but we've left out the social accountability piece.

 

We need the social accountability piece.

 

Ayn Rand was wrong, folks - society is a system of which we're all a part.  When we work against each other, constantly, ignoring things we don't think matter, problems arise that impact all parts of the whole, like an illness.  The role of government is to serve as brain, responding to the needs of the parts and coordinating operation against them. 

 

Oh - and when the elected mechanism of government fails to do its job, others step up to fill that space that aren't accountable to the public.  That's how revolutions happen.

 

It's time the institutions we're meant to rely on step up to the plate.

 

 

Communist Libertarianism: The North Korean Paradox

 

Such inflammatory rhetoric is common from North Korea, and especially so in recent days. North Korea is angry over the possible sanctions and over upcoming U.S.-South Korean military drills. At a mass rally in Pyongyang on Thursday, tens of thousands of North Koreans protested the U.S.-South Korean war drills and sanctions.

"But nobody helped them because they were so focused on themselves and their families."
 

 

With China on the slippery slope towards pseudo-capitalism, North Korea is really the last Cold War Communist State left.  The more isolated they become, the more frightened they get, shoring up their firewalls and threatening any trouble that might even possibly think about lapping at their shores.  Alas, North Korea reflects all that went wrong with the Stalinist Experiment - corrupt leaders that feel entitled to their frills, poorly-informed decisions, resource inefficiency, a suffering populace and the thing that irks me the most - waste.  Waste of materials.  Waste of talent.  Waste of opportunity.

 

Opportunity, of course, lies in change, adaptation, growth.  You can't have progress without change, which requires a certain personal flexibility and a willingness to listen to and work with others. 

 

Progressives, as we know, get branded as pinko lefties by the political right; trying to force social contracts and new ideologies on the people who are just fine as they are, thank you very much.  Libertarians in particular are anathema to centrally-generated, centrally-imposed policy, particularly where it comes to their right to do whatever they please with their resources on their land.  "Back off, government," say the landowers - this is our land."  Libertarians can get pretty belligerent when they feel their personal and territorial liberties are being threatened. 

 

One of those personal liberties they cherish, of course, is the ability to protect their territory.  While the Second Amendment was about having a populace armed to protect against external threats, the political right, led by the NRA, have reinterpreted it to be about the right to bear arms and protect personal property, including self.  There are lots of threats lapping at the castle walls, a man's got to be able to defend his family, or something to that effect.  The NRA spends a whole lotta money fighting for the individua's right to bear arms. 

 

When innocent people die because of those arms, the NRA is quick to point out it's not their ideology, but external threats that are the problem.  Their Spokesman Wayne Lapierre issued a statement that was carried by Fox News to every corner of the US:  "In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes—every minute of every day of every month of every year.”

 

But wait a minute. 

 

Anti-change, anti-external imposition, the desire to keep people off your land, protect it with guns and thump your chest at anyone who comes near your territory?  That sounds awfully familiar.  It sounds something like North Korea.

 

Ah, but I'm only saying that because I'm a lefty, pinko progressive.  I'm either incapable of understanding how things really work or am choosing to ignore the facts.  True libertarian/politically right people aren't interested in ruling over big territories or other people, they just want to be left alone to their own space.  You don't interfere in their business, they won't interfere in yours. 

 

It just so happens that because we have a corrupt, socialist system in place, the world isn't working the way it's supposed to.  Which is why people like Randy Hillier proactively work to get out the non-freedom lovers like Norm Sterling to make room for properly anti-government libertarians like Jack MacLaren.

 

Ditto Rob Ford - the Lord Mayor was so upset with the corruption and entitlement of leftist Mayors that he had no choice but to do whatever it took to win office and set things to right.  We're very lucky he's there - he's all that stands between us and the leftists on City Council.  He's also the only hope the kids of Don Bosco have of getting ahead in life.  Mayor Ford, you see, knows the right way to motivate people to be independent, so long as they listen to him.  Those he can't help, he can shout down - or incarcerate, or run out of town. 

 

The checks and balances of a democratically elected government and an impartial bureaucracy have helped to filter out some of Mayor Ford's policy approaches.  One wonders what he'd be up to, as leader, if those checks and balances that infuriate him so didn't exist.  Then again, he does have the undying love and support of Ford Nation in his corner.

 

Power is about getting and maintaining control.  Libertarians want control of their own lives, but in a social context, that absolute freedom has to come at the expense of someone else's freedom.  Totalitarianism is basically libertarianism at the state level.  Both libertarians and totalitarians want the freedom to exercise their control in their territory however they please and think that they're the ones who have all the answers. 

 

Despite what they tell themselves, freedom from others isn't the goal - control of territory and resources is.  People, after all, are territorial animals.

 

Like all animals, people maintain territorial control through threats and, where necessary, strength.  Handguns are to people what horns are to bulls or rhinos - and nuclear deterrents are the same thing at the state level.  Costly and expensive propaganda is the state-level equivalent to the peacock's tail.  Control is about preventing external incentive to change, which is what progress is all about.

 

Knowledge is progress.  The handgun and the nuke are the products of progress, as are all weapons and fences that help protect one's territory.  All aspects of society, in fact, have been engineered not by isolationist individuals or regimes, but by collaborative people.

 

Progress isn't about forcing change, so much as libertarianism is about stopping it.  Just like the North Korean regime keeps trying to do.  Fortunately for both, progress is like time - you can't stop the inevitable.

 

 

Christina Blizzard: Education Hypocrite

 

 

For some youngsters, the only thing that gets them out of bed and off to school is the notion that there’s a basketball practice at the end of the day.

 

 

Cognitive Dissonance: The state of holding two or more conflicting cognitions (e.g. ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously.

 

 

Christina Blizzard thinks Full Day Kindergarten is bad.  To her, FDK is a luxury that carries a whopping $1.5 billion price tag and comes at at time when it's not business as usual any more for Ontario's economy.  She has referred to FDK as full-day babysitting.  What's more, she has made it clear she believes becoming a parent shouldn't be a lifestyle choice.  Children, after all, aren't fashion accessories.

 

Tell me if I'm wrong, but what I get from this is that parents need to be responsible for their kids and shouldn't expect the public dollar to support the out-of-school care for their children.  If you're going to be a parent, you should be accountable for the well-being of your own child.  Right?  

 

Unless, of course, Blizzard is talking about extra-scholastic activities, traditionally referred to as "extra-curricular" because they aren't part of the mandated curriculum (and are therefore voluntary).  These are things like basketball practice that give kids motivation to get out of bed in the morning. 

 

While it's wrong for parents to expect the public sector to provide full-day babysitting to their kids on the public's dime, when it comes to after-school time, it's the teachers who are using students as pawns in their battle with government over the Putting Students First by suspending extra-scholastic activities.  Teachers, according to Blizzard, are focused on the financials, not the kids. 

 

So, when it comes to FDK, the government should focus on the financials and not be paying for daycare; that's the parents' job.  When it comes to post-school activities, though, the teachers are wrong to focus on financials and should be doing the parent's job of providing extra-scholastic activity for their kids.

 

These two positions are not in agreement.

 

But there's more:

 

My children suffered through the strikes and bans on extra-curriculars during the Mike Harris years. A whole generation of young people had what should have been a fulfilling school experience turned into a spiteful standoff that put them in the middle.

 

Were her kids the ones yearning for after school basketball as a reason to get out of bed in the morning?  If that's what it took to get her children out of bed, why should public sector teachers be responsible for motivating them?  Many Jewish parents are happy to pay to have their children educated according to their beliefs.  If it's commendable for some parents to pay out-of-pocket to ensure their children are educated according to their beliefs, shouldn't parents who want their kids to play sports after school be willing to pay for them, too?  This includes teachers who are parents; I know many a teacher that still pays for daycare while they're providing extra-curriculars to other people's kids. 

 

In fact, when you pay for private after-school activities, you help create jobs and support the economy.  When you expect the public sector to pick up your slack, you deny private-sector opportunities and add to the burden on the public purse.  Finance Minister Dwight Duncan suggested this very thing when, asked who was responsible for Ontario's massive deficit, he said “It’s everybody’s fault. We’ve all done this.”
 

But Blizzard disagrees.  "Well, count me out, Dwight. I have no comfy government pension. I don’t make it to the Sunshine list of $100,000 earners. Speak for yourself."  It was the fault of teachers, unions and government that her kids didn't have a fulfilling school experience; she's not on the sunshine list so perhaps can't afford cushy after-school activities.  But it's the fault of people not her that we have a deficit; people like single mothers looking for government to give them welfare to care for their kids.  Care for their kids during the day, that is - not after school.  That's clearly different.

 

You can't have it both ways, Ms. Blizzard.  You can't object to parents having the choices they want to make for their children disregarded if they expect someone else to take responsibility for enacting those choices.  Either parents are individually responsible for the well-being of their kids or society is a collective effort that we all have to take responsibility for. 

 

Which is it?